On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Scott James Remnant <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 10:55 -0500, Adrian Perez wrote: > >> I think Git is better suited than Bzr for the job, and I don't make to >> make it personal. >> > If you think Git is better suited, please demonstrate it by building up > an equivalent infrastructure that has been built up around bzr, so fair > side-by-side comparisons can be performed. > >> It's true that there's an infrastructure set up, but I think the idea of >> voting is letting the community decide for itself, and don't impose us a >> tool which might not be the preferred choice for most of our developers. >> > Right now, that vote would be: > > ( ) continue using the existing apt-get source infrastructure, and > contribute by sending debdiffs around; merge from Debian by hand, > etc. > > ( ) use the new bzr infrastructure, contribute directly to revision > control branches, merge using native merge support
There's also, as James mentioned, the git-bzr and hg-bzr projects. If there are people that really, really want to issue git commands (it certainly sounds like there are), instead of bzr commands, I can understand that. If you're in this camp, please consider contributing to the translation-layer projects, such that you can happily work in your git world with git commands, but when you're ready to push your work, push it through the translation layer, and let it land in the Launchpad/Bazaar backed repositories, which are currently well-integrated tools. :-Dustin -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
